On an application for an interim injunction under s 1324(4) of the Corporations Act, the Court is not confined to the traditional interlocutory injunction tests of serious question to be tried and balance of convenience. The broad question is whether the injunction would have some utility or serve some purpose within the contemplation of the Corporations Act, including protecting the community against a real risk of wrongdoing or marking the Court's disapproval of contravening conduct. The provisions of s 1324(6) and (7) apply to interim injunctions as well as permanent injunctions. ASIC v Cooke, Liquorland v Anghie and Westgold Resources v Precious Metals Australia should not be followed on this point.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 41 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 41 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.